Which is more important, science or religion?

[Ebowed]

In fact, Genesis even details the scientific progress of man

It also tells us a story about a talking serpent that tricked a woman into eating a fruit that made every person inherently sinful.  What's your point?

Religion is a guessing game intended to make people feel like they are more important

Who is playing the guessing game: the one whose story has remained the same?or the one whose keeps changing?

Whose story has remained the same?  First your God is a tyrannical bloodthirsty power who smites every nation who disagrees with him and bestows upon his people a ridiculous set of commandments and unbelievably harsh punishments; the next day he wants you to give away your belongings, turn the other cheek, and show love and compassion to the destitute.  The fact that nobody can agree on a set interpretation of the Bible (you have your young earth creationists, your old earth creationists, your theistic evolutionists, your flat earthers, etc.), and particularly the fact that your religion is just one of many that claims to be correct, how are we supposed to know whether your story has remained the same if we don't even know what it is?  While I'm sure you'd be glad to tell everyone your God-inspired interpretation of his own good book, nobody will really care because no one agrees 100% with all of it.

[Ebowed]

1st)  The New Covenant was prophesied in the Old Testament, so it is obviously NOT a departure from the story.

That doesn't matter - the fact is that God repeatedly committed genocide against other nations in the OT, and suddenly had a change of heart in the NT.  This is where the phrase "Old Testament-style" derives from, obviously.

2nd)  The New Testament is based off the Old Testament, so, again, it is not a departure, rather it is a fulfillment.

Correct, you have made an excellent case to reject the New Testament.

3rd) The New Testament states that Christ will "smite every nation who disagrees with him", so that is also not a departure.

The definition of "nation" obviously changed, though, because God actually held your geneology against you in the OT (I'll cite examples if need be), whereas anyone was allowed into God's kingdom in the NT.  I don't see why anyone born outside of the Jews before 10 AD gets such an unfair shake.

4th) The Old Covenants "ridiculous set of commandments" were NOT in place at the beginning of the Old Testament, so it doesn't represent the entire Old Testament, and therefore your comparison misses the point that they didn't exist in the begginning, but were added for a short time, then removed.   You missed the point that the purpose was to demonstrate that humans do NOT have the ability to attain salvation based upon merit since they are themselves imperfect and sinful, not to mention the other purpose of identifying the Messiah.

But all that time before the commandments were there, humans still did not have any Messiah, nor were they perfect or not sinful.  How did they attain salvation during this period?  Actually, how did they attain salvation during the time in which the commandments were in place, given how it would be virtually impossible to follow them 100% perfectly?  And why would God use 1,500 years of people to make an example for the people that followed?

The "story that hasn't changed" I was referring to is God's word (i.e. God's interpretation or description of how the world works), not the various interpretations of it.

OK.

?Nobody? cares? ?No one? agrees 100% with all of it?!  Where did you get that idea?!

You missed my point entirely.  Nobody will ever be able to agree 100% on an interpretation of the Bible.  For example, many of the Christians on this board seem to disagree with your opinion on who God's chosen people are (you say it is still the Jews, IIRC), and that's just the tip of the iceberg.  Given this problem, how are we supposed to know which interpretation is correct, given that two interpretations of the Bible can yield wildly different viewpoints?

And none other than Jesus stated scripture is without flaw.

Remind me again where he stated scripture is without flaw?  In the scripture itself?  This is certainly a logical fallacy, since you cannot rely on the same source you are using to prove something as proof that the source itself is valid.  If I don't think scripture is without flaw, why would I trust Jesus when he says that it is without flaw in the scripture itself?